In GYH v Persons Unknown  EWHC 336, the claimant, a transgender woman who works as an escort, was granted an interim injunction to prevent, amongst other things, the publication of information which purported to relate to her private life.
Selvaratnam Suresh, an honorary chairman, trustee and co-founder of the Oriental Fine Arts Academy of London (‘OFAAL’) has succeeded in his libel claim against Abdul Samad, Amirthalingam Nagarajah and Kajananan Sathananthan, after the defendants agreed to retract their allegations, apologise and pay compensation and costs. The first two defendants are parents of pupils at the West London Tamil School. The third defendant is a former pupil and the president of the school’s alumni association.
In LJY v Persons Unknown  EWHC 3230 (QB), Mr Justice Warby granted an interim injunction restraining unknown defendants from publishing serious allegations of criminality against a celebrity, anonymised in the proceedings as ‘LJY’.
In the case of David v Hosany  EWHC 2787 (QB), His Honour Judge Moloney QC considered a libel claim brought by the claimant, a Governor of the East London Foundation NHS Trust, in respect of three publications by the defendant, another Governor of the same Trust. These publications alleged that the claimant had intimidated and harassed the defendant, with two of the publications containing allegations of sexual harassment.
Websites and social media accounts have been, for some time now, the preferred platforms for those with an axe to grind to attack their opponents. Disgruntled customers, ex-employees and jilted lovers number amongst those who believe the world wide web provides the best opportunity to criticise those who have dared to cross their path.
The decision in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2619 (QB) clarifies the application of the statutory defence of honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013. In doing so the case also confirms the application of the defence to statements made by Government bodies and the interdependence of the defence upon findings of meaning.
“#MeToo”: Five letters that have been tweeted millions of times in the past month, and demonstrate the enormous power of social media and how it can bring about change for the good. The feeling of solidarity is a cathartic experience for many who have been the victim of sexual abuse, harassment or other forms of coercive behaviour. Beyond this, the reach of the hashtag is already challenging outdated social values and societal norms.
Brett Wilson LLP has been ranked in the 2017 edition of the Legal 500 as a leading firm in the fields of Reputation Management, White Collar Crime/Fraud and General Crime. The latest edition was published on 11 October 2017 and marks the sixth consecutive year that Brett Wilson LLP has featured in the directory.
The long-awaited decision in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd  EWCA Civ 1334 has brought some badly-needed clarity and certainty to the law of libel, and it seems fair to say that reports of the death of the libel writ have been greatly exaggerated. The decision interprets both the meaning of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 – “the serious harm” test – and determines the point at which a claim for libel crystallises.
Snapchat is a multimedia messaging mobile application (app) that allows users to send videos and photos to their contacts. The recipient can normally only view an image/video for a limited period of time (perhaps just a few seconds). This encourages some users to send risqué (sometimes explicit) images/videos to one another. This feature is far from foolproof. A receiving party may take a screenshot of the image or a photo and/or video of the screen with a separate digital camera/phone.